Closed sgfn closed 3 months ago
Attention: Patch coverage is 94.73684%
with 1 line
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 88.51%. Comparing base (
af1fec4
) to head (b142d04
). Report is 4 commits behind head on master.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
lib/ex_webrtc/rtp/vp8/depayloader.ex | 0.00% | 1 Missing :warning: |
@LVala I, too, thought that ex_doc would handle it, but alas
Without @spec
in implementations:
With:
Removing the @doc
will automatically add a doc with "Callback implementation for ". Indeed, not @spec
in such a case.
Not sure which one is better, but having explicit spec seems more useful.
Edit: You also need to remove @impl true
to generate the default doc, which is kinda yucky.
I think that at the end of the day, we don't want to document functions from Opus/VP8 payloaders/depaylaoders. Instead, the whole documentation should be in the behaviour module or in the module that is responsible for dispatching or in both.
E.g.
d = ExWebRTC.RTP.Depayloader.new(ExWebRTC.RTP.Depayloader.VP8, some_options)
{frame, d} = ExWebRTC.RTP.Depayloader.depayload(d, packet)
In such case, we only need to document ExWebRTC.RTP.Depayloader.VP8 module. Its functions shouldn't appear in docs. But this is the final outcome.
@mickel8 Could you please reiterate on how exactly do you suggest the docs should look like? Specifically, which parts should I get rid of?
@sgfn please take a look at #154
Closes #143